Tardif v. City of New York
- Kimba Wood
- 1:13-cv-04056
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tardif v. City of New York, Judge Wood overruled objections and allowed medical-record pages and underlying statements into evidence.
Mary Tardif and the City of New York, because the ruling concerns evidence offered in their case.
What happened
In Tardif v. City of New York, Mary Tardif objected to the City of New York’s attempt to introduce several pages from a medical record created after her January 5, 2021 visit to NYU Langone Health.
Tardif argued that the record required the rules governing expert evidence because Dr. Alexander K. Allen, its author, was acting as an expert. She also objected that statements by other physicians and by Tardif herself were hearsay. The court concluded that the record could qualify as a reliable record of a regularly conducted activity and that the underlying statements fit exceptions for medical diagnosis or treatment or statements by an opposing party.
Judge Wood overruled all of Tardif’s objections, permitting the challenged medical-record pages and the referenced statements to be introduced.
The detailed version
- Tardif v. City of New York · No. 1:13-cv-04056
- Kimba Wood
- June 23, 2022
Background
Mary Tardif objected to the City of New York’s attempt to introduce several pages of a medical record from Tardif’s January 5, 2021 visit to NYU Langone Health. The pages were included in Tardif’s Exhibit 42. The record was authored by Dr. Alexander K. Allen.
Arguments and Analysis
Tardif argued that the medical record had to be introduced under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs expert testimony, because Dr. Allen was allegedly acting as an expert. The court rejected that argument. It explained that medical records are regularly admitted under Rule 803(6), the exception for records of a regularly conducted activity, without applying the rules governing expert reports. The court found that this record had sufficient signs of trustworthiness to be considered reliable.
Tardif also raised a hearsay objection to statements by other physicians and by Tardif that were referenced in the medical record. The court concluded that those statements were admissible either because they were made for medical diagnosis or treatment or because they were statements by an opposing party.
Ruling
Judge Kimba M. Wood overruled Tardif’s objections. The order therefore permitted the challenged medical-record pages and the referenced statements to be introduced into evidence.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.